Slashdot Mirror

A search of the archives turns up this Bluetooth cordless presenter from Logitech that was a mouse-like object reviewed on Slashdot late last year.

A little pricey for the casual user but built-in laser pointers are fun if you have a cat. Then you can play Cat and Mouse!

They sit there and carefully and systematically work through each game, taking notes on the sound, music, graphics, etc. They evaluate the game the same way Roger Ebert carefully picks through a movie and sees it's good bits and bad bits.

That's only one thing that a game reviewer is supposed to do. They are also supposed to review the game as a whole. More often than most would care to admit, there is nowhere near that level of attention to detail when conducting a review. How many times have we seen so-called reviewers exposed for being nothing more than fanboys on the take from publishers (bribes, junkets and payola)? Or even worse, how often do they write reviews without ever seeing or playing the game in question (fraudulent reviews)?

As long as the publishers know that they can manipulate reviewers by the carrot --bribes, junkets and payola-- or the stick --threatening no review copies of games or no access to staff for interviews-- they know that they can get away with just about anything when publishing games. Is there any wonder why 95% of games published don't make a profit?

At Geartest.com we have faced the latter problem, where publishers will not send us the actual products, even when we occasionally request them.

They send us press releases, screenshots, more PR about promotional offers, bundle discounts and contests, but they rarely send the software.

Maybe it's because we have repeatedly told them that we won't publish non-news, and we won't publish features without direct access to the game in question and/or the staff who made the game (in the case of interviews/features).

Meanwhile, you get self-proclaimed 'journalists' like Marc Saltzman who carve out a cottage industry for themselves while doing nothing to advance serious, legitimate, journalistic or critical coverage of games.

There are an endless number of Web site and so-called 'game press' that are happy to publish PR and advertising and call them articles or features. As long as there are gamers who give these sites and magazines their traffic and pay for this type of PR content, the game companies, their marketing agencies and the publications themselves have no incentive to stop pimping, whoring and publishing lousy games.

CERIAS' Gene Spafford says overpowered, complex, general purpose machines that can do way more than people need are a big part of the problem.

A lot of the attacks that we're seeing now are coming from systems that have been subverted, sometimes by automated agents -- worms, break-in toolkits, massive denial of service tools -- that are taking over home computers [and] small business computers, and are using those as platforms to launch attacks. That's a big threat because those systems are not run by people who really understand anything at all about security...

Read the rest of this interview in which he discusses how increased, unnecesssary complexity combined with a lack of users' understanding of security vulnerabilities and issues, and manufacturers' lack of interest in building in security can make systems more vulnerable to attacks.

This interview with Spaf goes into much more depth about his thinking about security -- or 'assurance' as he says -- because '...security really is a property that's an absolute that we can never quite achieve.'

Read the interview.

This interview with Spaf goes into much more depth about his thinking about security -- or 'assurance' as he says -- because '...security really is a property that's an absolute that we can never quite achieve.'

Read the interview.

The Presenter's price might initially induce sticker-shock but upon consideration it's not as high as it first appears. Geartest.com checked prices on standalone presentation remotes, wireless mice and laser pointers. As far as we could determine, the total price of any combination of these three devices from a variety of manufacturers cost at least as much as the 3-in-1 Presenter, if not more. By choosing the Logitech device over three standalone devices, the user effectively receives the benefits of a good implementation of Bluetooth and good design for free.

It's bad enough that most so-called technology news and reviews sites don't amount to much more than a collection of regurgitated press releases and graft-driven prose -- most rampant in the games industry as discussed previously on Slashdot in two threads on fraudulent reviews and bribes, junkets and payola -- but does Slashdot have to promote them?

The item above is identical to the DSC-FX77 digital camera press release from Sony Europe's site. Could the reason for posting a press release as news be more payola from Sony?

Everyone whines and complains about the problem but they keep helping and promoting sites lacking any integrity by providing them with traffic. The question I have is why do Slashdot's editors participate and add to the problem by directing traffic to them? I'm sure that the editors are concerned by the brochure-style content of more and more sites, although that wouldn't be apparent from posting this 'story'. I've found that Tim generally does a pretty good job of separating the signal and substance from the noise and fluff, but this one got past you.

If you want to see quality Web content, vote with your clicks and posts and discourage blatant product promotion by shills for product manufacturers.

Frankly, these problems are what made us decide to start Geartest.com. We figured that there should be some place on the Internet where people can find unbiased technology product reviews that can be understood by the layperson. It's been difficult getting manufacturers to loan evaluation units because we specifically tell them that they will not necessarily receive positive coverage by virtue of sending their products -- but a few seem to be coming around to our way of thinking.

Hopefully average technology users and Slashdotters will too.

It's bad enough that most so-called technology news and reviews sites don't amount to much more than a collection of regurgitated press releases and graft-driven prose -- most rampant in the games industry as discussed previously on Slashdot in two threads on fraudulent reviews and bribes, junkets and payola -- but does Slashdot have to promote them?

The item above is identical to the DSC-FX77 digital camera press release from Sony Europe's site. Could the reason for posting a press release as news be more payola from Sony?

Everyone whines and complains about the problem but they keep helping and promoting sites lacking any integrity by providing them with traffic. The question I have is why do Slashdot's editors participate and add to the problem by directing traffic to them? I'm sure that the editors are concerned by the brochure-style content of more and more sites, although that wouldn't be apparent from posting this 'story'. I've found that Tim generally does a pretty good job of separating the signal and substance from the noise and fluff, but this one got past you.

If you want to see quality Web content, vote with your clicks and posts and discourage blatant product promotion by shills for product manufacturers.

Frankly, these problems are what made us decide to start Geartest.com. We figured that there should be some place on the Internet where people can find unbiased technology product reviews that can be understood by the layperson. It's been difficult getting manufacturers to loan evaluation units because we specifically tell them that they will not necessarily receive positive coverage by virtue of sending their products -- but a few seem to be coming around to our way of thinking.

Hopefully average technology users and Slashdotters will too.

You have more tolerance for product faults when it's ... just something you're testing for a couple weeks and sending back.
AND
What's worse are consumer magazines that recommend tech products, often without testing them at all, just because they look cool.

That's the problem with most so-called 'reviews' you see in the technology press. They aren't real reviews at all. Using a gadget for a few hours over a couple of weeks doesn't tell you anything about the product's performance over an extended period of time. Neither does focusing on how pretty something looks.

Long-term testing is a critical part of our review philosophy at Geartest.com: Real gear. Real world. Real reviews. What does that mean? We don't write reviews about products in a pre-release stage or based on press releases. We use the products for an extended period in real conditions. Then we tell readers what we found, with updates as warranted. That results in a fair review. That means that good, bad or mediocre, products will get the reviews that they deserve.

We won't publish even a preliminary look at something until it's consistently been in use for at least 30 days.

As for ZD's staff skewing the 'cool' products, it's up to the reviewer to demonstrate some necessary professionalism and not skew a product evaluation based on its 'coolness' or just because they haven't paid for it. And it's up to the editor to enforce a policy that prevents reviewers from skewing their reviews.

When people evaluate and assess products for an enterprise, they often haven't paid for those products either but it seems that full and fair assessments are made without too much difficulty, even if those reviews are only for private consumption.

And that is the same idea that drives Geartest.com.

You have more tolerance for product faults when it's ... just something you're testing for a couple weeks and sending back.
AND
What's worse are consumer magazines that recommend tech products, often without testing them at all, just because they look cool.

That's the problem with most so-called 'reviews' you see in the technology press. They aren't real reviews at all. Using a gadget for a few hours over a couple of weeks doesn't tell you anything about the product's performance over an extended period of time. Neither does focusing on how pretty something looks.

Long-term testing is a critical part of our review philosophy at Geartest.com: Real gear. Real world. Real reviews. What does that mean? We don't write reviews about products in a pre-release stage or based on press releases. We use the products for an extended period in real conditions. Then we tell readers what we found, with updates as warranted. That results in a fair review. That means that good, bad or mediocre, products will get the reviews that they deserve.

We won't publish even a preliminary look at something until it's consistently been in use for at least 30 days.

As for ZD's staff skewing the 'cool' products, it's up to the reviewer to demonstrate some necessary professionalism and not skew a product evaluation based on its 'coolness' or just because they haven't paid for it. And it's up to the editor to enforce a policy that prevents reviewers from skewing their reviews.

When people evaluate and assess products for an enterprise, they often haven't paid for those products either but it seems that full and fair assessments are made without too much difficulty, even if those reviews are only for private consumption.

And that is the same idea that drives Geartest.com.

Did you buy and exchange your Palm at the same store? It may be that the defective units were from the same batch.

If you (or anyone else) has any further details please let me know. I'd be interested to read more.

I suggest that most of you go back and read what I wrote. It's clear that some didn't even bother to read a word of what I said.

Again, We have no problem with people linking to our site .

Nowhere did I say that I am in favor of any legislation that outlaws deep linking.

BACKOV: Ignoring the condescension, your reply assumes that the natural tendency of people is to steal and the problem will get worse. What is necessary is education about the value of other people's work.

ANONYMOUS COWARD: Ha Ha Ha! Good one! =)

SPITZAK: We don't want to break everyone's LINKS to us. We want to prevent people from taking our work and representing it as their own -- also known as plagiarism -- and profiting from it without any recognition or recompense.

CAPTAINSUPERBOY: You appear to be one of the few who read and understand what I said.

J09824: You, too have missed the point. First, we are not 'in business' in the sense that you mean. We are a group of individuals from various professional backgrounds who contribute to Geartest.com in addition to our regular jobs. How many of your favorite sites have disappeared because they could no longer afford to pay the bandwidth costs? We aren't looking to get rich from our site, just to help people make informed decisions and hopefully break-even while doing it. If you want to know more look here or visit the site. If you can come up with another suggestion among the 'zillions' that you think are out there, we'd be glad to hear them. None of the ones you offered are practical for a whole host of reasons I'm not going to go into here, the least of which are privacy and usability issues. By the way, we don't have any 'web hackers'. If you're interested in helping out let us know.

Finally, your stereotypical, reactionary name-calling and accusations don't help anyone. The actions of your legislators is your responsibility. If you are too apathetic to make your views known to those people who are pursuing legislation against yor interests, you have nobody else to blame but yourself for any consequences.

PHXBLUE: Thanks for your suggestions. They are already on a list of options being considered as we're planning and working on our 3rd-iteration site design.

DAHGHOSTFACEDFIDDLAH: Hilarious! =) We'll put that one down as a back-up plan!

CHANDON SELDON: Again, see the above comments on linking. We'd rather not spend our time in the courts over what we consider to be a fun project. Hopefully it won't come to that. I agree with you that LINKING to our .html files is a good thing. TAKING our content (writing, images, etc.) without permission and without crediting us isn't.

DH003I: you want to punish all of US and destroy the internet WE'VE worked so hard to create.

Please enlighten everyone exactly what it is that you created. I suppose you are the REAL creator of the Internet and not Al Gore.

As for your outrage about corporatism, does your hypocrisy know no bounds? You vote with your dollars. If you don't like the WSJ service then don't pay for it. Why support an organization that is so obviously against your stated interests? Your protests sound hollow.

And next time you can leave your manifesto at home. Just don't forget to adjust your tin foil hat on your way out.

TSHAK: Thanks for your considered opinion. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. Please clarify what you mean when you say 'free'. You say that others should not be able to copy and claim our work as their own. But if they directly link to an image and embed it in their pages without even a mention of where it came from, ignoring our requests to remove it when we ask, then they are de facto claiming our work as their own. Repeat after me, 'Taking content and representing it as your own is theft!' (Or you can call it plagiarism if you like).

HERBIEROBINSON: The distinction you make is an important one. See above re: litigation.

GRASPEE_LEMOOR: I'd rather not spend my time chasing down referrers when our page-views are consistently in the 5-figure range and on their way to 100,000+ territory.

On the remainder of your post, because you are so obviously responding from a place of ignorance -- especially with regard to commercial entities and a supposed conspiracy of 'employees' modding the post up (you might want to check your tin foil hat too) -- I'm just going to refer you to what I've written above.

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion!

I suggest that most of you go back and read what I wrote. It's clear that some didn't even bother to read a word of what I said.

Again, We have no problem with people linking to our site .

Nowhere did I say that I am in favor of any legislation that outlaws deep linking.

BACKOV: Ignoring the condescension, your reply assumes that the natural tendency of people is to steal and the problem will get worse. What is necessary is education about the value of other people's work.

ANONYMOUS COWARD: Ha Ha Ha! Good one! =)

SPITZAK: We don't want to break everyone's LINKS to us. We want to prevent people from taking our work and representing it as their own -- also known as plagiarism -- and profiting from it without any recognition or recompense.

CAPTAINSUPERBOY: You appear to be one of the few who read and understand what I said.

J09824: You, too have missed the point. First, we are not 'in business' in the sense that you mean. We are a group of individuals from various professional backgrounds who contribute to Geartest.com in addition to our regular jobs. How many of your favorite sites have disappeared because they could no longer afford to pay the bandwidth costs? We aren't looking to get rich from our site, just to help people make informed decisions and hopefully break-even while doing it. If you want to know more look here or visit the site. If you can come up with another suggestion among the 'zillions' that you think are out there, we'd be glad to hear them. None of the ones you offered are practical for a whole host of reasons I'm not going to go into here, the least of which are privacy and usability issues. By the way, we don't have any 'web hackers'. If you're interested in helping out let us know.

Finally, your stereotypical, reactionary name-calling and accusations don't help anyone. The actions of your legislators is your responsibility. If you are too apathetic to make your views known to those people who are pursuing legislation against yor interests, you have nobody else to blame but yourself for any consequences.

PHXBLUE: Thanks for your suggestions. They are already on a list of options being considered as we're planning and working on our 3rd-iteration site design.

DAHGHOSTFACEDFIDDLAH: Hilarious! =) We'll put that one down as a back-up plan!

CHANDON SELDON: Again, see the above comments on linking. We'd rather not spend our time in the courts over what we consider to be a fun project. Hopefully it won't come to that. I agree with you that LINKING to our .html files is a good thing. TAKING our content (writing, images, etc.) without permission and without crediting us isn't.

DH003I: you want to punish all of US and destroy the internet WE'VE worked so hard to create.

Please enlighten everyone exactly what it is that you created. I suppose you are the REAL creator of the Internet and not Al Gore.

As for your outrage about corporatism, does your hypocrisy know no bounds? You vote with your dollars. If you don't like the WSJ service then don't pay for it. Why support an organization that is so obviously against your stated interests? Your protests sound hollow.

And next time you can leave your manifesto at home. Just don't forget to adjust your tin foil hat on your way out.

TSHAK: Thanks for your considered opinion. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. Please clarify what you mean when you say 'free'. You say that others should not be able to copy and claim our work as their own. But if they directly link to an image and embed it in their pages without even a mention of where it came from, ignoring our requests to remove it when we ask, then they are de facto claiming our work as their own. Repeat after me, 'Taking content and representing it as your own is theft!' (Or you can call it plagiarism if you like).

HERBIEROBINSON: The distinction you make is an important one. See above re: litigation.

GRASPEE_LEMOOR: I'd rather not spend my time chasing down referrers when our page-views are consistently in the 5-figure range and on their way to 100,000+ territory.

On the remainder of your post, because you are so obviously responding from a place of ignorance -- especially with regard to commercial entities and a supposed conspiracy of 'employees' modding the post up (you might want to check your tin foil hat too) -- I'm just going to refer you to what I've written above.

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion!

I suggest that most of you go back and read what I wrote. It's clear that some didn't even bother to read a word of what I said.

Again, We have no problem with people linking to our site .

Nowhere did I say that I am in favor of any legislation that outlaws deep linking.

BACKOV: Ignoring the condescension, your reply assumes that the natural tendency of people is to steal and the problem will get worse. What is necessary is education about the value of other people's work.

ANONYMOUS COWARD: Ha Ha Ha! Good one! =)

SPITZAK: We don't want to break everyone's LINKS to us. We want to prevent people from taking our work and representing it as their own -- also known as plagiarism -- and profiting from it without any recognition or recompense.

CAPTAINSUPERBOY: You appear to be one of the few who read and understand what I said.

J09824: You, too have missed the point. First, we are not 'in business' in the sense that you mean. We are a group of individuals from various professional backgrounds who contribute to Geartest.com in addition to our regular jobs. How many of your favorite sites have disappeared because they could no longer afford to pay the bandwidth costs? We aren't looking to get rich from our site, just to help people make informed decisions and hopefully break-even while doing it. If you want to know more look here or visit the site. If you can come up with another suggestion among the 'zillions' that you think are out there, we'd be glad to hear them. None of the ones you offered are practical for a whole host of reasons I'm not going to go into here, the least of which are privacy and usability issues. By the way, we don't have any 'web hackers'. If you're interested in helping out let us know.

Finally, your stereotypical, reactionary name-calling and accusations don't help anyone. The actions of your legislators is your responsibility. If you are too apathetic to make your views known to those people who are pursuing legislation against yor interests, you have nobody else to blame but yourself for any consequences.

PHXBLUE: Thanks for your suggestions. They are already on a list of options being considered as we're planning and working on our 3rd-iteration site design.

DAHGHOSTFACEDFIDDLAH: Hilarious! =) We'll put that one down as a back-up plan!

CHANDON SELDON: Again, see the above comments on linking. We'd rather not spend our time in the courts over what we consider to be a fun project. Hopefully it won't come to that. I agree with you that LINKING to our .html files is a good thing. TAKING our content (writing, images, etc.) without permission and without crediting us isn't.

DH003I: you want to punish all of US and destroy the internet WE'VE worked so hard to create.

Please enlighten everyone exactly what it is that you created. I suppose you are the REAL creator of the Internet and not Al Gore.

As for your outrage about corporatism, does your hypocrisy know no bounds? You vote with your dollars. If you don't like the WSJ service then don't pay for it. Why support an organization that is so obviously against your stated interests? Your protests sound hollow.

And next time you can leave your manifesto at home. Just don't forget to adjust your tin foil hat on your way out.

TSHAK: Thanks for your considered opinion. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. Please clarify what you mean when you say 'free'. You say that others should not be able to copy and claim our work as their own. But if they directly link to an image and embed it in their pages without even a mention of where it came from, ignoring our requests to remove it when we ask, then they are de facto claiming our work as their own. Repeat after me, 'Taking content and representing it as your own is theft!' (Or you can call it plagiarism if you like).

HERBIEROBINSON: The distinction you make is an important one. See above re: litigation.

GRASPEE_LEMOOR: I'd rather not spend my time chasing down referrers when our page-views are consistently in the 5-figure range and on their way to 100,000+ territory.

On the remainder of your post, because you are so obviously responding from a place of ignorance -- especially with regard to commercial entities and a supposed conspiracy of 'employees' modding the post up (you might want to check your tin foil hat too) -- I'm just going to refer you to what I've written above.

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion!

We have no problem with people linking to our site.

What we DO take issue with is individuals and companies stealing our content by linking directly to it and representing it as their own.

This is most rampant with graphics. We try to provide high-quality images about the products we review and the items we write about. Everybody likes big and clear pictures.

Many of these have to be converted from massive TIFF files into Web-sized JPEGs or GIFs. It may not seem like a big deal, but it takes someone's time and effort to optimize every image and fit it within our internal site guidelines to make it as accessible as possible to Web surfers at large. That adds up to a lot of time and effort.

There are those companies who steal our content outright without any attribution whatsoever. A friend was talking to one of his colleagues, who told him that his previous employer regularly visited our site specifically to steal our graphics. (That site has since gone out of business).

And there are those offenders who link directly to our content on their sites -- again without attribution -- causing us to bear the bandwidth costs of transmitting hundreds of megabytes worth of data without any credit, benefit or return to us.

We have found our content abused on major sites (household names), without any response from the Web staff of those companies when we try to contact them about it.

Most of our content is available for syndication. If you like it and want to use it, ASK.

As a footnote, we are considering acquiring and implementing some form of digital rights management, which is something we don't want to do. However, if we continue to see this kind of content theft, then we need to get it under control before the costs reach a point where we are forced to shut down our site.

It's good to see that this problem is getting more attention -- deservedly so -- and it's being recognized as such.

I wrote about it in February in response to a previous Slashdot article on magazines faking game reviews. But the larger problem is that this highly suspect practice is rampant with consumer technology product reviews. In a best-case scenario most so-called reviews are based on a cursory glance at a given piece of technology, instead of an authentic review.

In brief (in case you don't have time to read my somewhat lengthy previous comments), we started Geartest.com because of the problem of fictional and heavily biased reviews that amount to regurgitated press releases. I wrote about some of the difficulties we've had in getting the cooperation of companies despite our growth and consistently high traffic levels, and some of the 'hints' we received about how we could get their cooperation.

Our review philosophy is simple: Real gear. Real world. Real reviews. No reviews of products based on press releases or in a pre-release stage. We use the products for an extended period in real conditions. Then we write about the results, with updates as warranted based on extended usage. That means if a product is good we say so, if it sucks we say so, but we also talk about the shades of gray where most items fall.

Now this problem of compromised 'reviews' and 'reviewers' is not new. The press covering the automotive industry has been criticized for similar problems but as that industry matured, reporters have -- for the most part -- come to understand that their only assets are their credibility and good name. Cautionary tale: Andersen with the whole Enron debacle. Though it reviewed and certified finances instead of technology products, Andersen went from being the most trusted and widely respected auditing firm to being poison because it compromised its integrity.

I'm reminded of a couple of items I saw on a regional TV newcast during the last year. The news program serves millions of people. The health and science report was a four-minute segment on a new breath freshening product under the guise of a report on halitosis -- bad breath -- after which the on-air personalities (I won't call them journalists) proceeded to try the aforementioned 'revolutionary' breath product. The segment was the only thing that was noisome. The second item, was a 7-minute segment on a brand-name SUV 'boot camp' that was being offered to consumers for 'free' -- except for the 1 to 5 hours required to complete various elements of the simulated off-road course while test-driving the SUV line-up for that manufacturer. Never mind the fact that hardly any SUVs see terrain more difficult than a gravel shoulder. It was just another puff piece that was free advertising for a company that wanted to get consumers to come to its facility where salespeople would have a captive audience.

Let's be clear: writing about an industry and its products is a symbiotic relationship by its very nature. If you can't get access to the people and products that you are supposed to be writing about, then it becomes very difficult if not impossible to review those very items. Conversely, without coverage of their offerings by trusted media, consumers might overlook a given company's products. At Geartest.com we make it simple. Give us access to your product, answer any questions we may have, do not interfere with our process, and you will get a fair review. The concept that a fair review doesn't always guarantee a favorable one causes many to balk.

For some reason computer gaming seems to be among the areas where this happens most frequently. That industry is among the most resistant to provide access without a guarantee of a rave review. Our review policy instantly scares many marketing drones off when they are accustomed to dealing with pliable and willing 'reviewers.'

Of course you have reviewers at the exact opposite extreme that strive for excellence. Consumer Reports is among the best-known and most trusted examples of reviews with integrity. A healthy, skeptical and critical approach -- if not a slightly adversarial one -- is good for consumers, reviewers, and even for manufacturers who are interested in building high-quality products and a trusted brand.

One of our staff members is participating in a journalism conference next week where one of the policy sessions aims to (in part) address the problem of junkets and payola-based product reviews that amount to nothing more than free advertising. It will be interesting to see what the resultant ethical policy and statement of principles will say about reviewing commercial products.

Whatever the outcome at the conference, we're determined to stick to our review philosophy because we honestly believe it serves everyone's best interest. On another note, we're working on a new site design and have a number of products under review at the moment, with several more waiting in the wings. There are some managers out there who understand and endorse our approach, though it would be nice if there were more.

Please check us out and let us know what you think -- What you like, don't like and where we can improve. After all, we're not above being reviewed ourselves. =)

It's good to see that this problem is getting more attention -- deservedly so -- and it's being recognized as such.

I wrote about it in February in response to a previous Slashdot article on magazines faking game reviews. But the larger problem is that this highly suspect practice is rampant with consumer technology product reviews. In a best-case scenario most so-called reviews are based on a cursory glance at a given piece of technology, instead of an authentic review.

In brief (in case you don't have time to read my somewhat lengthy previous comments), we started Geartest.com because of the problem of fictional and heavily biased reviews that amount to regurgitated press releases. I wrote about some of the difficulties we've had in getting the cooperation of companies despite our growth and consistently high traffic levels, and some of the 'hints' we received about how we could get their cooperation.

Our review philosophy is simple: Real gear. Real world. Real reviews. No reviews of products based on press releases or in a pre-release stage. We use the products for an extended period in real conditions. Then we write about the results, with updates as warranted based on extended usage. That means if a product is good we say so, if it sucks we say so, but we also talk about the shades of gray where most items fall.

Now this problem of compromised 'reviews' and 'reviewers' is not new. The press covering the automotive industry has been criticized for similar problems but as that industry matured, reporters have -- for the most part -- come to understand that their only assets are their credibility and good name. Cautionary tale: Andersen with the whole Enron debacle. Though it reviewed and certified finances instead of technology products, Andersen went from being the most trusted and widely respected auditing firm to being poison because it compromised its integrity.

I'm reminded of a couple of items I saw on a regional TV newcast during the last year. The news program serves millions of people. The health and science report was a four-minute segment on a new breath freshening product under the guise of a report on halitosis -- bad breath -- after which the on-air personalities (I won't call them journalists) proceeded to try the aforementioned 'revolutionary' breath product. The segment was the only thing that was noisome. The second item, was a 7-minute segment on a brand-name SUV 'boot camp' that was being offered to consumers for 'free' -- except for the 1 to 5 hours required to complete various elements of the simulated off-road course while test-driving the SUV line-up for that manufacturer. Never mind the fact that hardly any SUVs see terrain more difficult than a gravel shoulder. It was just another puff piece that was free advertising for a company that wanted to get consumers to come to its facility where salespeople would have a captive audience.

Let's be clear: writing about an industry and its products is a symbiotic relationship by its very nature. If you can't get access to the people and products that you are supposed to be writing about, then it becomes very difficult if not impossible to review those very items. Conversely, without coverage of their offerings by trusted media, consumers might overlook a given company's products. At Geartest.com we make it simple. Give us access to your product, answer any questions we may have, do not interfere with our process, and you will get a fair review. The concept that a fair review doesn't always guarantee a favorable one causes many to balk.

For some reason computer gaming seems to be among the areas where this happens most frequently. That industry is among the most resistant to provide access without a guarantee of a rave review. Our review policy instantly scares many marketing drones off when they are accustomed to dealing with pliable and willing 'reviewers.'

Of course you have reviewers at the exact opposite extreme that strive for excellence. Consumer Reports is among the best-known and most trusted examples of reviews with integrity. A healthy, skeptical and critical approach -- if not a slightly adversarial one -- is good for consumers, reviewers, and even for manufacturers who are interested in building high-quality products and a trusted brand.

One of our staff members is participating in a journalism conference next week where one of the policy sessions aims to (in part) address the problem of junkets and payola-based product reviews that amount to nothing more than free advertising. It will be interesting to see what the resultant ethical policy and statement of principles will say about reviewing commercial products.

Whatever the outcome at the conference, we're determined to stick to our review philosophy because we honestly believe it serves everyone's best interest. On another note, we're working on a new site design and have a number of products under review at the moment, with several more waiting in the wings. There are some managers out there who understand and endorse our approach, though it would be nice if there were more.

Please check us out and let us know what you think -- What you like, don't like and where we can improve. After all, we're not above being reviewed ourselves. =)

It's good to see that this problem is getting more attention -- deservedly so -- and it's being recognized as such.

I wrote about it in February in response to a previous Slashdot article on magazines faking game reviews. But the larger problem is that this highly suspect practice is rampant with consumer technology product reviews. In a best-case scenario most so-called reviews are based on a cursory glance at a given piece of technology, instead of an authentic review.

In brief (in case you don't have time to read my somewhat lengthy previous comments), we started Geartest.com because of the problem of fictional and heavily biased reviews that amount to regurgitated press releases. I wrote about some of the difficulties we've had in getting the cooperation of companies despite our growth and consistently high traffic levels, and some of the 'hints' we received about how we could get their cooperation.

Our review philosophy is simple: Real gear. Real world. Real reviews. No reviews of products based on press releases or in a pre-release stage. We use the products for an extended period in real conditions. Then we write about the results, with updates as warranted based on extended usage. That means if a product is good we say so, if it sucks we say so, but we also talk about the shades of gray where most items fall.

Now this problem of compromised 'reviews' and 'reviewers' is not new. The press covering the automotive industry has been criticized for similar problems but as that industry matured, reporters have -- for the most part -- come to understand that their only assets are their credibility and good name. Cautionary tale: Andersen with the whole Enron debacle. Though it reviewed and certified finances instead of technology products, Andersen went from being the most trusted and widely respected auditing firm to being poison because it compromised its integrity.

I'm reminded of a couple of items I saw on a regional TV newcast during the last year. The news program serves millions of people. The health and science report was a four-minute segment on a new breath freshening product under the guise of a report on halitosis -- bad breath -- after which the on-air personalities (I won't call them journalists) proceeded to try the aforementioned 'revolutionary' breath product. The segment was the only thing that was noisome. The second item, was a 7-minute segment on a brand-name SUV 'boot camp' that was being offered to consumers for 'free' -- except for the 1 to 5 hours required to complete various elements of the simulated off-road course while test-driving the SUV line-up for that manufacturer. Never mind the fact that hardly any SUVs see terrain more difficult than a gravel shoulder. It was just another puff piece that was free advertising for a company that wanted to get consumers to come to its facility where salespeople would have a captive audience.

Let's be clear: writing about an industry and its products is a symbiotic relationship by its very nature. If you can't get access to the people and products that you are supposed to be writing about, then it becomes very difficult if not impossible to review those very items. Conversely, without coverage of their offerings by trusted media, consumers might overlook a given company's products. At Geartest.com we make it simple. Give us access to your product, answer any questions we may have, do not interfere with our process, and you will get a fair review. The concept that a fair review doesn't always guarantee a favorable one causes many to balk.

For some reason computer gaming seems to be among the areas where this happens most frequently. That industry is among the most resistant to provide access without a guarantee of a rave review. Our review policy instantly scares many marketing drones off when they are accustomed to dealing with pliable and willing 'reviewers.'

Of course you have reviewers at the exact opposite extreme that strive for excellence. Consumer Reports is among the best-known and most trusted examples of reviews with integrity. A healthy, skeptical and critical approach -- if not a slightly adversarial one -- is good for consumers, reviewers, and even for manufacturers who are interested in building high-quality products and a trusted brand.

One of our staff members is participating in a journalism conference next week where one of the policy sessions aims to (in part) address the problem of junkets and payola-based product reviews that amount to nothing more than free advertising. It will be interesting to see what the resultant ethical policy and statement of principles will say about reviewing commercial products.

Whatever the outcome at the conference, we're determined to stick to our review philosophy because we honestly believe it serves everyone's best interest. On another note, we're working on a new site design and have a number of products under review at the moment, with several more waiting in the wings. There are some managers out there who understand and endorse our approach, though it would be nice if there were more.

Please check us out and let us know what you think -- What you like, don't like and where we can improve. After all, we're not above being reviewed ourselves. =)

This problem of fictional reviews is the main reason we started Geartest.com. The problem doesn't only exist with video games but with most consumer technology products. Most tech 'reviews' out there are nothing more than regurgitated press releases with 'reviewer' doing nothing more than spending a few hours of playing around with one product or another.

That's in stark contrast to our review philosophy: Real gear. Real world. Real reviews. We don't write reviews about products based on press releases or in a pre-release stage. We use the products for an extended period in real conditions. And we tell the people what we found, with updates as warranted. That means if it's good we'll say so, and if it sucks we'll say that too... but usually the truth is somewhere in between.

We have had difficulty in getting manufacturers to send products to us for review. That is despite having grown to the point where we consistently have 5-figure impression levels, projecting breaking the 100,000 impression level soon. All of that is without us doing any advertising. Pure word-of-mouth. It's no Slashdot but we think it's decent traffic.

We suspect that the biggest problem (from the point of view of manufacturers) is that they simply don't want to risk getting a negative review. We believe it's in a manufacturer's interest to receive unbiased, journalistically sound reviews of its products. Ultimately that can enhance their credibility and add value to a brand in the eyes of the product-buying public.

We have had some people suggest to us that we 'play ball' if we want their cooperation. Frankly, it's not going to happen. We may miss out on getting 'insider' opportunities to cover and review items -- and we may not get to review some items that our users have asked us to -- but the feedback and response we have received from our readership (a good mix of techies and laypeople) tells us that we are on the right track.

The way we see it is this: if you have confidence in your product, then you should have no problem putting it to an unbiased test. It's surprising how many product managers recoil and refuse when you put it to them so plainly.

We're in the process of designing our 3rd-iteration site to enhance user-friendliness and add some more features and functionality. The one thing that will stay constant is that we won't trade our integrity for 'A-list' access to products. If that means we don't get access, we'll just deal with the people and companies who see the value in what we're doing.

Check out Geartest.com and let us know what you think.

This problem of fictional reviews is the main reason we started Geartest.com. The problem doesn't only exist with video games but with most consumer technology products. Most tech 'reviews' out there are nothing more than regurgitated press releases with 'reviewer' doing nothing more than spending a few hours of playing around with one product or another.

That's in stark contrast to our review philosophy: Real gear. Real world. Real reviews. We don't write reviews about products based on press releases or in a pre-release stage. We use the products for an extended period in real conditions. And we tell the people what we found, with updates as warranted. That means if it's good we'll say so, and if it sucks we'll say that too... but usually the truth is somewhere in between.

We have had difficulty in getting manufacturers to send products to us for review. That is despite having grown to the point where we consistently have 5-figure impression levels, projecting breaking the 100,000 impression level soon. All of that is without us doing any advertising. Pure word-of-mouth. It's no Slashdot but we think it's decent traffic.

We suspect that the biggest problem (from the point of view of manufacturers) is that they simply don't want to risk getting a negative review. We believe it's in a manufacturer's interest to receive unbiased, journalistically sound reviews of its products. Ultimately that can enhance their credibility and add value to a brand in the eyes of the product-buying public.

We have had some people suggest to us that we 'play ball' if we want their cooperation. Frankly, it's not going to happen. We may miss out on getting 'insider' opportunities to cover and review items -- and we may not get to review some items that our users have asked us to -- but the feedback and response we have received from our readership (a good mix of techies and laypeople) tells us that we are on the right track.

The way we see it is this: if you have confidence in your product, then you should have no problem putting it to an unbiased test. It's surprising how many product managers recoil and refuse when you put it to them so plainly.

We're in the process of designing our 3rd-iteration site to enhance user-friendliness and add some more features and functionality. The one thing that will stay constant is that we won't trade our integrity for 'A-list' access to products. If that means we don't get access, we'll just deal with the people and companies who see the value in what we're doing.

Check out Geartest.com and let us know what you think.

When so many news sites were going down yesterday we set up an aggregated news feed on the US attacks at our site. It's the top item on the main page.

PLEASE DONATE BLOOD! There is a continent-wide blood drive on. New York hospitals are critically low on blood supplies and many of the wounded are being transported to Canadian hospitals Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa to make space for the expected flood of critical patients in New York.

You can contact the US Red Cross or Canadian Blood Services to set up an appointment.

When so many news sites were going down yesterday we set up an aggregated news feed on the US attacks at our site. It's the top item on the main page.

PLEASE DONATE BLOOD! There is a continent-wide blood drive on. New York hospitals are critically low on blood supplies and many of the wounded are being transported to Canadian hospitals Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa to make space for the expected flood of critical patients in New York.

You can contact the US Red Cross or Canadian Blood Services to set up an appointment.

This Aeron chair review over at Geartest.com is the most popular review on Google. As the owner of a couple of Aerons I can see why.

You get the good and the bad. You get a description of how it holds up (or doesn't hold up) after use and over a long period of time.

Make up your own mind. Like many companies, I bought my Aerons due to the amount of time I have to spend in front of a computer. As one corporate ergonomist said to me when I was looking at buying office furniture, don't look at it as an expenditure....

Consider it as a long-term investment in your health.

This Aeron chair review over at Geartest.com is the most popular review on Google. As the owner of a couple of Aerons I can see why.

You get the good and the bad. You get a description of how it holds up (or doesn't hold up) after use and over a long period of time.

Make up your own mind. Like many companies, I bought my Aerons due to the amount of time I have to spend in front of a computer. As one corporate ergonomist said to me when I was looking at buying office furniture, don't look at it as an expenditure....

Consider it as a long-term investment in your health.